4 ms·

PornGate: What could a determined small ISP do?

34 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago
The other option is to offer the same shitty filtering that everyone else is offering, with a big simple [ ]ON [x]OFF option, and with links to sites offering information about democratic representation. As always, people in the UK have left it far too late to do anything so we're stuck with yet another stupid pointless law.
eriksank 13y ago
The plan is actually quite smart. As soon as the pornblock has been implemented, they will hire people like me to prove that: Hey, I could get through to this and that site, and they contain porn! This will prepare the second step. In order to make sure that all porn sites have been blocked, the ISPs will start getting from a new HM Block and DontShow department, a list of sites that the ISPs must not show. This will prepare the third step, in which they will give democratic access and oversight to the HM Block and DontShow list and extend its usefulness beyond porn, so that every pressure group around will be able to add its own set of sites that people should not see. The fourth step is that the list becomes mandatory. It will no longer be possible to opt out of such democratically-constituted wishlist of bannings ;-) There is only one problem with this approach, and the politicians do not seem to understand it, because the argument is a bit technical: The censorship is entirely based on the DNS system, which itself is just based on simple conventions. DNS is not mandated by the laws of nature or so. It is not possible to force users to resolve IP addresses for sites through any particular database such as a DNS database. It is not possible to prevent users from creating alternative databases either. Therefore, all that they are doing is to push users away from the traditional DNS system.
CamperBob2 13y ago
eriksank, you seem to be hellbanned.
nocoment 13y ago
An ISP is in an ideal position to coordinate resistance to censorship. Everyone using your service to provide content should be able to opt-in to being a proxy for all other content. Then censors get to select between allowing all content, no objector's content or attempt to filter too high in the stack and/or violate copyright.
- jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
  As I understand it, currently it's only the major UK ISPs offering this filtering, and they're doing so only as a result of political pressure rather than primary legislation. The big guys like BT, Sky, Virgin, etc, are just too scared of a bit of bad press or being called out by a politician, hence their craven (but voluntary) adoption of these suggestions. There are plenty of smaller ISPs around and few of them are remotely interested in joining the filter party. There's no reason for them to do so if they don't wish to. At least currently. There's nothing to say that at some point in the future a new "crackdown" won't be announced by a politician looking for an easy headline and their face in the papers. Thin end of the wedge, obviously - but currently these filters are entirely optional, both for ISPs and end-users.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    BT, Sky and Virgin are also broadcasters. I wonder if their bending over for the government has something to do with their desire to retain their government granted licenses to remain broadcasters.

34 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

The other option is to offer the same shitty filtering that everyone else is offering, with a big simple [ ]ON [x]OFF option, and with links to sites offering information about democratic representation. As always, people in the UK have left it far too late to do anything so we're stuck with yet another stupid pointless law.

eriksank 13y ago

The plan is actually quite smart. As soon as the pornblock has been implemented, they will hire people like me to prove that: Hey, I could get through to this and that site, and they contain porn! This will prepare the second step. In order to make sure that all porn sites have been blocked, the ISPs will start getting from a new HM Block and DontShow department, a list of sites that the ISPs must not show. This will prepare the third step, in which they will give democratic access and oversight to the HM Block and DontShow list and extend its usefulness beyond porn, so that every pressure group around will be able to add its own set of sites that people should not see. The fourth step is that the list becomes mandatory. It will no longer be possible to opt out of such democratically-constituted wishlist of bannings ;-) There is only one problem with this approach, and the politicians do not seem to understand it, because the argument is a bit technical: The censorship is entirely based on the DNS system, which itself is just based on simple conventions. DNS is not mandated by the laws of nature or so. It is not possible to force users to resolve IP addresses for sites through any particular database such as a DNS database. It is not possible to prevent users from creating alternative databases either. Therefore, all that they are doing is to push users away from the traditional DNS system.

CamperBob2 13y ago

eriksank, you seem to be hellbanned.

nocoment 13y ago

An ISP is in an ideal position to coordinate resistance to censorship. Everyone using your service to provide content should be able to opt-in to being a proxy for all other content. Then censors get to select between allowing all content, no objector's content or attempt to filter too high in the stack and/or violate copyright.

jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
As I understand it, currently it's only the major UK ISPs offering this filtering, and they're doing so only as a result of political pressure rather than primary legislation. The big guys like BT, Sky, Virgin, etc, are just too scared of a bit of bad press or being called out by a politician, hence their craven (but voluntary) adoption of these suggestions. There are plenty of smaller ISPs around and few of them are remotely interested in joining the filter party. There's no reason for them to do so if they don't wish to. At least currently. There's nothing to say that at some point in the future a new "crackdown" won't be announced by a politician looking for an easy headline and their face in the papers. Thin end of the wedge, obviously - but currently these filters are entirely optional, both for ISPs and end-users.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  BT, Sky and Virgin are also broadcasters. I wonder if their bending over for the government has something to do with their desire to retain their government granted licenses to remain broadcasters.